Speed Limits

[Ban my account ffs!]

I took 6hours of behind the wheel when I was 15 and then a real drivers test (written and on the road) to get my first license (in Illinois).  At 21 I moved to Georgia, to get mine there I had to take a 10 (I'm almost positive it was only 10 questions) "computer" test that was disgustingly easy.  That was 15 years ago.  I've gotten two Nebraska licenses since then and they both took about 5 minutes to get, no tests.  And it's not like I'm super great driver, lots of tickets (no accidents that were my fault since I was 16 though).  I don't care if the streamline the process, but they need to ask more questions, more often and those questions should be more difficult than they are now.

Yeah, the laws have become much stricter in the past several years.  For people just coming of age in Minnesota, you have to take 30 hours of drivers education classes, take a 40 question knowledge test (but you can't get more than 3 wrong) and also take the driving test.

There's actually no minimum here for behind the wheel instruction with your drivers ed instructor, though most places require a minimum amount of time (6 hours at mine, for example).  But then you only get a provisional license which has all sorts of restrictions (no driving late at night, no more than 1 other non family member in the car, no moving violations for the duration of your provisional license, etc.)  If you f up, you can't get your license until you're 18.

Oh, and if you get a DUI.. it costs $680 to get your license back... once your suspension is up, of course.

[TeePee4Prez]

Eliminate all speed limits.

I hate government as much as you do, but I really don't think it is an unnecessary intrusion of government to say you can't go 50 MPH in front of a school.  By doing so you are putting innocent children at risk, what is freedom loving about that? 

Highways need the increase, highways that I travel like 87 and 95 are a joke to be 55 or even 65 MPH.  People could safely travel 85+ without a problem, but not in a residential area.

Ehh, well 87 and 95 through major cities should be 70 MPH or any urban interstate.  NJTPK south of New Brunswick (I'm thinking Exit 10) should be 85 MPH and maybe even 95 MPH south of Exit 3.  GSP south of Perth Amboy should be 85 MPH through the semi-suburban areas and 95 MPH through the more rural areas.  I'd even say most of the AC Expressway through the Pine Barrens should be 95 MPH with reduced speeds of 80-85 closer to Philly and Atlantic City.  Our methods for determining reasonable speed limits is outdated, but facist state troopers are in no rush to change them due to revenues. 

[Franzl]

my suggestions:

Interstate (urban): 65 mph (variable based on certain circumstances, of course)
Interstate (rural): 80 mph

divided highway (rural): 75 mph

2-lane undivided highway: 65 mph

[??????????]

2-lane undivided highway: 65 mph

Nah, to high. Around here though we do have state roads which are 2 lane and are 60mph. Of course some of those roads go 30 miles without so much as any sort of curve.

We also have dirt roads here with a 30mph speed limit.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They do recognize each others licenses, they just don't want you permanently living in a state with an out of state one.

So they recognize them for a limited amount of time, or what?

I used my North Dakota license for almost a year after graduating college (which legally is when it ceases to be acceptable if you continue to live in state.) Like dead0man said the laws usually say you have to change it within a certain time, but there's no real way to enforce that, or penalty if your license isn't expired yet. I would've changed it sooner though if Minnesota didn't require you take a test even when transferring from another state, stupidly, not a very difficult test granted, but regardless, I had been driving in the state for 5 years already! At least the Minnesota written test is far easier than the North Dakota test as my parents told me back when I was training for my permit, and they're right. The ND test is horrible and has more to do with memorizing arbitrary distances and unenforced rules than traffic safety.

[minionofmidas]

^Winner.  Though I also favor flexible speedlimits...keep 80-85 mph as a the baselimit but let traffic control agencies increase or decrease the limits depending on time of day, volume, weather etc.

And volume of traffic.

Increase, too? Why? Wouldn't the baselimit be for "ordinary", "no reason to tinker" situations (which is of course most of them)? If you want a slightly higher maximum limit, why not just set that as the base limit?

We're both getting at the same thing, terming it different ways...supposing my max speed were 80 with the potential to reach 85 on dry days with low traffic and your max was 85 but could decrease with additional factors, I think we'd be getting the same result more or less.

Oh, absolutely. 'T was a minor quibble.

[angus]

I like the way it is now.  The speed limits are set arbitrarily low and only rarely, or selectively, enforced.  This allows for latitude and discretion on the part of the law enforcement community.  There are places and times where you can always drive 95 mph and never get a ticket, even though 65 is posted, and there are places where you'll get a ticket for going 31 mph.  By and large, it works.  Occasionally it is a problem.  (I frequently get tickets, usually on long stretches in which the artificially low limit is actually, and unnecessarily, enforced.  But I rarely pay them.  I have ignored far more speeding tickets than paid.  The only ones you really have to pay are when you get them in the same state as your license.)  This over-enforcement can have the effect of slowing you down.  Similarly, there are times of under-enforcement, when inexperienced or drunk drivers cause accidents even when driving the appropriate speed.  Presumably, the artificially low limit gives the authority a reason to stop suspicious types when it would not otherwise, providing a clean system of checks without the population having to endure too much burden.  I am usually one of the fastest cars on the road when I drive, and I only get a ticket or so per year, so overall it's not a problem.  And, just the awareness of the laws probably has saved my life.  If I know that the speed limit is 65, I will try to keep it under 90.  Most folks are like that, I assume.  And for those who aren't, let them be occasionally ticketed for driving way too fast.  They can, or should be willing to, pay the occasional fine.  It's usually not excessive.  More of a hassle than anything else, or perhaps something like a user tax, willingly paid by those who enjoy the privilege of fast driving.  Their number will likely represent only a small fraction of the population, so statistically you're pretty safe out there.

Generally, in the US, the arbitrary numbers listed on the signs are less important than the conditions and the flow.  I have actually discussed this at some length with highway patrolmen.  If the traffic is flowing at 90, and you go 90, you won't get stopped, regardless of what the sign says.  If the traffic is flowing at 60 and you go 90, there's a good chance you'll be stopped.  Similarly, if you are driving at a speed far less than the flow you may be stopped.  And with good reason.  Any driver who is driving at a speed much faster, or slower, than the mean speed is likely to cause a problem.  In a very real sense, the drivers collectively decide the speed limit.  The signs can generally be taken as precautionary, but the market, as it were, generally sets the speed limit.  Posted limits will keep you awake and alert and, in some cases, give the cops an excuse to pull you over in a way that doesn't violate your rights.  As a bonus, it gives some small towns along the interstate, whose city councils have annexed a portion of the highway, a way to make some revenue.  Call that a user tax as well.  On balance, it's a reasonably efficient system for maintaining safety.

[muon2]

The system of assigning speed limits is generally based on well-defined formulas, and when correctly applied usually gives a reasonable result. To set a speed limit a jurisdiction will hire a traffic consultant to measure speeds along the road at various hours of the day. The consultant will then suggest a cutoff at the 85th percentile of the measured speeds but not exceeding any state requirements. The officials can then adjust that speed lower for certain mitigating circumstances like the frequency of driveways and other curb cuts, and the likely presence of pedestrians. There's a long list of factors that may be applied. Note that the procedure starts with the assumption that there will be vehicles moving in excess of the posted speed limit.

The system fails when a jurisdiction ignores the procedure to create a slower zone than conditions warrant. Local resident pressure is typically the cause of this, since slower vehicle movement in a residential area is a plus for the residents, their safety, and their perceived property value.

The statutory limits can also be a problem if they fail to account for different driving patterns in a state. For instance, Illinois still has a interstate highway truck speed limit of 55, even though lighter vehicles can move at 65 in areas outside metropolitan areas. There are attempts every year to change it, but the public from Chicago and the inner suburbs feels strongly against it and they can carry enough votes in the legislature to block passage. I suspect similar dynamics exist in the other states.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's fine the way it is now. It's not like going 5 or 10 miles above the speed limit will get you a ticket now.

[nclib]

Generally agree with the current system.

They are issued by the state, not the Feds.

Yes, I understood that. Still... why shouldn't states recognize each other's driving licenses? They recognize each other's birth certificates, after all.

That's good since otherwise you'd have to be born again.

[Mechaman]

Speed limits are utterly despicable. It's like people who enjoy the taste of another person's fecal matter: Just not right man.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

They are necessary on quiet residential streets, but major highways should not have speed limits

Totally agree.  I'd add in that state roads should have them most of the time as well.

[Mechaman]

Speed limits are utterly despicable. It's like people who enjoy the taste of another person's fecal matter: Just not right man.

Let me be crystal clear though: As disgusting as it is, I wouldn't outlaw scat porn.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Faster on highways. Accidentally picked the wrong one. 

[Richard]

Although the speed limit in Ontario is 100, highway 407ETR moves at 150 to 170 in the morning during rush hour.  Eves (past premier) proposed increasing the speed limits to 130 for any 400 series highway and 150 for highway 407 because that is the speeds they were designed for, but the ing socialists cried that only rich people would be able to drive 150 (because highway 407 charges 19c/km), so that got axed.

*shrug* I drive a lot and I generally speed at 145 unless there's traffic moving faster, in which case I'd be happy to oblige.

[MK]

I agree with somewhat of a speed limit.    On major highways though anything less then 60 mph is ridiculous.

[Badger]

As to anyone who wants to remove speed limits from residential most roads, such people are called "murderers", not "libertarians".

This is closest to my view. I want to repeat what Muon said that speed limits aren't pulled out of the state's ass. It's a carefully designed system to protect the lives of drivers--theirs and others sharing (key work here) the roads with them:
<The system of assigning speed limits is generally based on well-defined formulas, and when correctly applied usually gives a reasonable result. To set a speed limit a jurisdiction will hire a traffic consultant to measure speeds along the road at various hours of the day. The consultant will then suggest a cutoff at the 85th percentile of the measured speeds but not exceeding any state requirements. The officials can then adjust that speed lower for certain mitigating circumstances like the frequency of driveways and other curb cuts, and the likely presence of pedestrians. There's a long list of factors that may be applied. Note that the procedure starts with the assumption that there will be vehicles moving in excess of the posted speed limit.>

A quick mythbuster here: You may find some podunk local police agency as an exception, but the reality is 99% of police officers do NOT have a "quota" of tickets to write. Please spare me your anecdotes of "my cousin's brother in law is a cop, and he says...". I guarantee I've worked closely with more cops from more police agencies than over 99% of the forum, and that's nothing more than an urban legend spread by whiners who got popped driving faster than they should've been. Cops do NOT get a financial benefit from tickets they write. It's a job they do like any of us.

I'm not saying that every road is posted at the perfect speed limit and there aren't any needing raised. Nor should all interstates necessarily be treated the same: there's a big difference in driving I-80 in metro Chicago and driving it in southern Wyoming. (Side story: A friend of mine once made that trip and saw exactly one car in the several hours west of Cheyenne and the Utah border. She was convinced she was cracking up because the vehicle passing her in the other direction was the frikkin Oscar Meyer Weinermoble. She's still traumatized.)

That said, the difference between libertarianism and unrestrained license is the latter seeks to undo law and government control even when it is for the protection of others than the person decrying their own personal "oppression". Sorry, but most of the posters in this thread apparently drive with testosterone rather than brain cells and act like their stick shift is an extension of their penis. I'd be scared to death to have my family on a road with no/an expanded speed limit and the more irresponsible posters here. In short, the arguments here are among the best I've read for keeping the speed limit mostly as is--to protect the other 95% of drivers out there from idiots.

[2952-0-0]

Let transport engineers set the speed limits. Keep the politicians out of it.

[WillK]

Speed limits are utterly despicable. ...[/size]

Why? 

Can someone explain why some people seem to care about this issue?

[Nym90]

Speed limits should both be higher (generally speaking) and more strictly enforced.

[Jake]

Speed limits should both be higher (generally speaking) and more strictly enforced.

I strongly agree. As a driver, what I dislike about the current set-up is how on two identical roads  you can be traveling at 10 mph over the speed limit, driving safely, and you might get pulled over on one but not the other. The inconsistency of enforcement is obnoxious (as is clearly off-duty police passing you at 80 mph, but we'll ignore that). Drivers need to know what speed they can travel at safely; if 10 mph over isn't be enforced consistently, why should drivers respect such a speed limit when police accept that it is safe to drive at such speeds.

Also, lol at the weasel above.